All right, why don't we start with roll call?

Um Chuck?

Here.

Mike.

I'm here.

John.

We are here.

John.

Okay.

And Jeff.

Here.

And I'm here.

And Libby?

Wes.

Okay.

They're not here.

All right.

First matter of business is just had it up a second ago.

Ah.

Sorry, it just went off my screen.

I well, are there any um changes to the agenda?

Okay.

Are there any petitions from uh members?

Are there any petitions from the public?

Okay.

Any announcements?

Approval of the minutes.

Does anybody see any um changes from the minutes?

Okay.

Any um anyone want to make a motion?

This I I read it, and I motion to put approval.

Okay.

Is there a second?

John, would you like to second that or Chuck?

Second.

Chuck is second.

All right.

Um we will go ahead since one person is on the phone and do a roll call.

Uh Chuck.

Yes.

Mike.

Yes.

Jeff.

Yes.

John.

Yes.

And I'm a yes, so that's unanimous.

All right.

Okay.

So there doesn't seem to be any old business.

So we're going to start with new business.

And Anna Scott, are you uh presenting?

Um I will present, but I'll let the applicant give their presentation first.

Or Adam, you don't have a presentation, so you can just explain.

Sure.

Uh well, I'm good to see the commissioners again.

I'm Adam Golden.

I'm a partner with Northwood Raven, and um you've seen many of our projects, Caraway and Hillmont.

And this is so this is the Hillmont project.

I think you guys looked at, I guess it would have been probably a year and over a year ago, um, at this point, maybe a year and a half.

And you know, it's on 54 uh right across from Meadowmont.

Um we have started site work.

Uh we've got our zoning compliance permits in hand, and building permits are moving through the review process right now.

So this is somewhat of a unique uh request, and it it honestly it kind of came up.

Um we were watching the um so it's a very let me back up, it's a specific modification.

So it's we are the only thing we're requesting to modify is the affordable housing component of our approval.

And this this all came up, so I was watching um the September council hearing where the affordable housing staff presented the 2026 um kind of a list of projects that they wanted to fund, and council was reviewing that.

I think there were four projects on the docket, and I think there was only enough funds to support two of them.

So there were two projects.

There was a gap in funding.

And I think the gap based on that presentation, I think was like it was a little over a million dollars.

It was about 1.1 million, I think, to fund like everything.

So I saw that hearing, and I'd also seen back in June that there was a project on Elliott Road across from the Whole Foods that was approved with an option in their affordable housing offer that that had a payment in lieu uh, or you could provide units in the project.

You know, Pillmont was approved.

The original um approved the the approval that we have today includes uh 10% of our market rate units, um, which equates to 43 units at the project that would be included, you know, when we build the project, there'll be 43 units.

Half of them are at the 60% AMI level, half of them are at the 80% AMI level.

We worked very closely with uh Sarah, Emily, and Maggie on the affordable housing team to kind of really dial that in.

Um we were kind of moving through the process.

The we're in a moment in time.

So as you've seen, we've started site work on that project, but we actually don't have a loan in place yet.

Um, as I'm sure you've seen or heard, or maybe experienced that you know, the financing markets right now are still very tricky.

Um rates are starting to come down and fingers crossed they will continue.

Um, but getting a loan for a project of our scale and kind of what we're doing is is still it's it's tricky.

And we are in negotiations right now, we're working with some lenders, and when I saw the September hearing, I had this idea.

I said, look, we have a very big project.

And if this will be the first time that we've actually had included um affordable housing within a traditionally financed project like this.

So to make it easier, if the number of units were reduced, we'd still provide them, but it was reduced.

And we could make a payment, like a basically split it and make a payment and do partial units.

What it really would do is two things.

A, it would make our financing much easier to understand for the lender.

And right now, that is really, really important in this environment.

That that's what it does for us.

What it when I saw the presentation on September, what it would do for the town is it could provide some much needed resources to allocate really however the council sees fit.

Um we would what we we proposed, and this is a lot of working with the staff, is you know, basically a donation uh or a payment um to the affordable housing fund.

So that I think can be allocated however the council would determine it get allocated.

Um the amount we we pushed basically.

This is this is like a dollar for dollar type of thing when we analyzed it.

Um so there's no financial benefit to us one way or the other.

It's really it'll help enable our financing today, and it looked like it would help really provide some resources for the town when we you know, I saw in September there is a gap.

So that's really what we proposed, and um it was my idea, so I'll take credit for it.

Um and uh and and that's that's kind of it.

And oh, one qualifying thing.

So the 20 units we would provide would follow the exact same uh program that we have approved.

So the only modification to the zoning would actually be the number of units provided.

Like it would be 50% at the 60% AMI, it'll be 50% at 80%.

Um, same mix of units, same location on the site, nothing else would change.

Um because we have our ZCP in place, um, and because the timing we're in a very short window where this would even work.

Um we we would be committing to making that payment very shortly after the final approval of the modification.

So probably within 45 days, we would be in a position to make the payment.

Um, and I think traditionally payments in Lou have happened at the CO, which is much further down the road, you know, when the building's actually built.

So um so that's that's kind of it in a nutshell.

Um I'll stand by for any questions.

Thanks, Adam.

Um, Aniscott, did you want to add uh did you have a something or do you want to wait until after we I have a very short presentation that I can fly through just to put some things on the screen for commissioners, and then we can have to fly through it.

We've got we've got time.

Let me get that set up.

Let me know if you can see my screen.

Yep.

Okay.

Perfect.

So Adam already introduced this project.

Um, but I will go through the staff presentation to give um some more information from staff.

This is a request to modify a existing conditional zoning district for 147 drive, otherwise known as Hillmont.

Um I'll show you the site.

Here's NC54 at the top of the screen, and then this is the site, and you can see in the aerial that clearing and grading has already started on the site, as Adam said.

Um they have two different zoning applic or zoning compliance permits for the site already approved from the town, and they're in the process of getting their building permits.

Um this is their already approved district specific plan.

Um this is not changing um with this modification request.

I only put it up there because the specific affordable housing plan references block E, um, which is the block that you could see buildings on the screen.

Um so just wanted to put that up there also to remind you of what the project layout um kind of looks like, what you saw when this was before you um two years ago in November 2023 when it was previously approved.

So staff recommends that the um council consider the modification request subject to the conditions of ordinance A and um staff has uh evaluated the modification request and thinks that it is in alignment with the complete community goals in the comprehensive plan because not much is changing.

Um it's just the affordable housing plan that is being modified.

Um a summary of the project, which the applicant already went through, but I'll just reiterate that the request is to modify an existing conditional zoning district in order to amend the affordable housing plan as part of that CZD.

It will include a new 1.15 million dollar voluntary contribution to the town's affordable housing funding program, and it will change the number of affordable units required on site from 10% of the market rate units to a minimum of 20 units.

Um and then all other conditions of the approval will be unchanged.

Um it's just the two conditions that um relate to affordable housing.

And then just a reminder of the procedures to consider the resolution of reasonableness and consistency with the comprehensive plan and consider the ordinance approving the modification.

Um and what we really ask you to do is to provide a recommendation to council on this proposed modification.

And that's it.

Okay.

Well, let us start with clarifying questions, either Jeff.

Yeah, um, first a question for Anna Scott.

Um I'm looking at the ordinance.

Um and I just had a question.

Um it's page, no, there's not page numbers.

Um page um top of page three.

Um the sentence that says if units in block A, B, and C are developed in later phases of the project, the number of affordable units in block E shall be increased according to the percentage of affordable units in subsection A above prior to final zoning inspection of more than 50% of the market rate units in the accompanying phase.

Um are the are they all going into block E or I just sub A doesn't seem to reference.

I'm not sure.

I don't understand that provision.

Um so um I'll let the applicant speak to exactly where the affordable units are gonna be, but I will say that that section of the condition is unchanged from the original conditional zoning ordinance that was approved two years ago by town council.

Um the portions that are changing are the number of units and um some of the stuff about timing um and then the uh voluntary contribution.

Okay, thanks.

Yeah, I just subsection A does not reference a percentage of affordable units.

That that could be something we need to update in the ordinance from the previously approved one.

Yeah, let me I can try to answer that.

And Hannah Scott, I don't know if you have this.

Jeff, that's a very good question.

Um do you have our zoning compliance permit plan accessible?

That site plan.

Uh I I can pull it up real quick.

Um and and it and so here's the reason and if in the meantime, if you could pull up the district specific plan, I could kind of it I think seeing that and then seeing our zoning compliance permit, Jeff will answer your question.

Um so on the district specific plan that is included in the zoning ordinance.

At the time, we did we were not sure if we were going to build this in multiple phases.

And blocks A, B, and C, um, you'll see if you recall on the district specific plan, um, were just shown as a block.

They were not, we didn't have buildings shown.

Um, on the zoning compliance permit, we made a decision that we are doing the whole thing at one time.

And so all of those blocks, the units that are going to be shown there are included.

And it I don't know if you if you have a district specific plan, I can talk from that one.

Um I don't know if you could share that.

Um yes, I am pulling up the site plan from the ZCP right now.

But I can pull up the district specific plan first.

It may be it, yeah.

And for this question, it'll actually be good to see both of them because I think it'll it can I'm not sure I can my technology ability, I don't think will let me do both at the same time.

So no, if you do do if you can do the district specific plan first, then I can kind of yeah, okay, here, perfect.

So if you see blocks A, B, and C, um I don't know if you guys recall, but that's where we have some smaller buildings in block C.

There are three 20 unit buildings.

And then in blocks A and B, we had some townhomes, and there are six single family rental buildings.

Um at the time we did the ordinance, again, we didn't know we would do those at the same time.

We subsequently decided we are doing the whole thing at the same time, and that is what's on the approved zoning compliance permit.

And the language that you referenced said if we only did block E, which is the five buildings that you can see here, then the number of affordable units would ultimately be increased to include any units on blocks A, B, and C down the road.

If we did them down the road and we built using around numbers 100 units, you would add the subsequent additional affordable units at that time.

Because we're doing it all at once, the number of affordable units, the total market rate is based on 468 units, which is our kind of final one-time unit count.

If does that it's a long-winded answer, but does that make sense?

So it's yeah.

That does, and the the um I did pull up the current, I I managed to find the current conditional zoning ordinance, and it does that that reference is wrong.

So it's just before you um before it goes to council, just need to update it to make sure it's accurate.

Um, I guess the second question, um, and sorry, thank you for thank you for answering that.

My second question is for the for the applicant.

Um, can you just talk a little bit about the financing issues with, I mean, since you said there's no financial impact, um, you know, it's the same, I guess, cost um to moving forward with the project.

Like just, you know, uh, I'm not a finance expert.

Doesn't need to be, you know, um super technical, but just uh understanding why what makes it hard to get the financing for a project with um additional um affordable units for the sure um yeah, so you know, most I actually started my career on the affordable housing side doing low-income housing tax credit projects.

Um most affordably financed projects that are either have a large portion or are all affordable, use some form of low-income housing tax credit or bond financing.

That is very specific.

It is very it's a specialized thing, long process through the state finance agency, um, lots of uh a pretty significant amount of regulation and um leasing guidelines.

It's the the management companies that um handle those kind of projects are really there's a a lot of rules and regulations they have to follow.

Um so what we are doing, you know, we are using traditional financing, just like we would use Caraway Village or you know, uh Chapel Watch Village or any of the other projects we've done.

And when we do traditional financing, that lender is not like they're not specialists on the affordable housing component.

So when they see it, they they don't understand it.

They will ask us, okay, how is it, you know, how is the process handled?

How is your management company?

We have our own management company, so how are they going to uh make sure that this is done properly and it basically it's a it creates questions, if you will.

And so what we are trying to do is in this kind of world where it's still a little unstable, is make that question, hey, it's not it, it's it's not as big a thing to worry about.

We you know, I feel very good.

We've worked very closely with staff.

We've agreed on actually our affordable housing performance agreement, which outlines all of the nitty-gritty detail of how this will actually be, you know, for the units we have on site um executed.

It's just it's easier to understand for the lender if they say, oh, well, my market rate units are most of them, and I've got this small component that's that has this affordable, and there's you know, the rent is lower, there's a utility allowance, there's all kinds of details that um have to be watched over.

And so the the best way to say it is it just makes that component smaller and easier to understand.

And um it's it if today's world wasn't what it is, um it probably would be less of an issue.

It's just the the we're we're you know, people are not they're still getting back, they're like edging their toes back in.

And you know, if if something changes or if interest rates go up or or something, I mean it could change.

And we are, you know, we have to get fancy for this project.

So um we're a thousand percent committed.

So we're just trying to make it as easy as possible to get it done as fast as possible, if that makes sense.

Thank you.

What's the other questions?

Okay, I have a question.

Uh so just following up on that, Adam.

Um if this confusion is what is making it harder, why don't you just double the payment in lieu and do no inclusionary housing?

Wouldn't that solve your problem more and give the town a larger sum?

Yes.

And I I in conversations with staff, uh, you know, we we said that would be an option if that was more appealing.

Um what I think the feedback we got, and and you know, we know this, you know, because of our original approval, is that I know that the policy and that the town has really wanted units on the ground to get actual units constructed.

So um, you know the benefit of Helmont is that it's a larger project, and so we can actually come up with a meaningful contribution and provide units.

Uh it would be easier if we did this as one payment.

It absolutely would.

And that is on the table.

Um we would we would do that.

Um just the sense I've got in conversations with um the affordable housing team and Anna Scott's team at the planning department is splitting it is probably almost kind of seems to kind of feel right for the project.

Um, but we would be open to that to your question.

That that we would that would be something that would it would make it much simpler.

And I John has his hand up, but just to follow up on that, um have you actually been in discussion with with whoever you're trying to get financing from that just making this smaller, but not making the complication disappear because pretty much you have to do all the same amount of work and set up all the same that that actually would make a difference.

Oh, yeah, that would be just your gut.

No, no, no, no.

We as soon as soon as we came up with this idea, um, I you know, I ran it by them.

And there they're they said yes, that would I mean it the answer to that is yes, it would it would help.

Um and that comes right from them.

Okay, John.

Thanks, Liz.

This is a question for Anna Scott, and maybe you've answered this already, and I'm sorry if so, but I'm just wondering whether uh the planning department and or the um affordable housing department has a a preference one way or the other.

Um I mean it sounds like from the developer's perspective economically um they're neutral, it just may increase their um likelihood of getting traditional financing, but from the town's perspective, does fifty thousand dollars per lost unit, which is what we're talking about here.

Um make the town hall, is the town able to secure um replacement units at $50,000 per unit.

Um and is there any other thinking on the town's part in terms of whether this makes a town hall or is desirable or not desirable?

Um I I won't speak for the affordable housing team um since they're not present on the call, but in conversation with them.

Um this is a proposal that we um can get behind.

Um it is not um that there's trade-offs to both to having on-site um affordable housing units sooner versus the um voluntary contribution.

Um and staff has evaluated those trade-offs in conversation with the applicant to see what um we can settle with and what they can offer.

Um and this was uh what they could offer and and what staff is um okay accepting.

So I can't I can't speak for the affordable housing team in what our ultimate preference would be, but this isn't a uh modification that we are um okay putting forward um in front of council to to be approved.

Would Aniscout when you say sooner?

Could you just clarify what that I didn't quite follow what would be the sooner part?

So if nothing changed, if there was no modification, these affordable housing units would be available for people to live in sooner than uh going through the contribution being added to the funding program and then that being allocated to a project, and then they would have to go through all of the process to get those units built.

So the the Hillmont affordable housing units are just closer to being on the ground and being available.

Does that answer your question?

Yeah, that's perfect.

Um so I'll just follow up.

Um Adam said he came up with the figure initially because at the town council meeting there were four projects, but they could only fund two.

Would those be the two that would be funded or not necessarily?

Not necessarily.

Um the voluntary contribution would go into the affordable housing funding program.

And um uh I believe that that funding is determined by the town where that gets allocated.

And I believe anything over a hundred thousand dollars has to be approved by town council.

Um so it would be up for town council to decide where that money goes.

Um those projects could be on the table and it could go to those projects, but it's not a guarantee.

And um also just to give us a point of reference, if it were for those two projects, do you know how many affordable units that would represent?

I do not.

Adam, by any chance, do you know that?

Do you remember that?

The projects that were not being funded because of the shortfall, how many affordable units understanding that those might not be what's funded, but just to give us a sense of the trade-off.

Yeah, I've got that presentation I'd printed out.

I believe there was the um one of the projects had 12 units and one of them had 32 units.

Okay that were not funded.

It was the one by uh Rosemary Place and Carver Street.

That's the 32 unit one.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um other questions.

Clarifying questions.

Mike.

No.

I I do not have a comment, but I'll wait.

Okay.

If there are no more questions, then go ahead, Mike.

Why don't you go?

Why don't we move to the comments?

Well, uh okay, thank you.

I was just thinking.

Um, I mean, I I I Oh, Mike, I'm sorry.

Are there any I don't think there's anyone?

There are no members of the public.

No members.

Okay.

Sorry, Mike, just needed to check that.

I mean, I I kind of love love the dialogue in here.

It sounds like the affordable housing unit has has the support for this.

It sounds like the speed to have the you 20 units come in uh for the folks that need those kind of housing is a good thing.

The councils obviously or the city gets some funding.

So I'm I'm saying this seems to be a really good um project for for the town.

Okay, that's my comment.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Uh Chuck.

I think I remember when this project was presented to us.

Um at the time, I think the question I asked is um because um I said we want to do uh is that me?

I hear like an echo, is that me?

No.

Uh we hear you okay, Chuck.

You're okay.

Okay, um, so um, so yeah, um they mentioned that they wanted to do uh 10% uh affordable housing.

And I think I commented the time the town like really liked the to get 15% from a project is is that possible?

And uh I think the the comment was no economically it just would not work, and not to meant not to mention that we really don't have to do this 10%.

We just want to be a good partner with the town.

Now two years later, basically the number drops from 43 to 20.

So it's going from less so it's going from 10% to really less than 5%, 4 point something.

Which I think is not a good thing.

Um that doesn't bother me initially.

So I won't I can tell because I started on um an affordable housing board for a number of years.

So I wanna talk to some of my affordable people who are still doing this work.

And I said, what do you think of this?

And they they did not like it whatsoever.

Um the units are much more important.

I mean, 20 units, I mean it's great to get 20 units, but 20 units is not 40 or not, it's not 43.

Um the people who will be best served by these by these units uh are just cannot afford to um be left out.

Um and then the as far as the 50,000 per unit, they from what they tell me that's just kind of peanuts, particularly today's uh uh environment where the uh political environment where money for affordable housing is just not priority anymore.

So um I have a lot of problem with this.

Um I would feel better if it maybe the payment of lose is a good thing, but maybe if you want to compromise somewhat, maybe instead of going with 20 units, maybe go say 25.

That will at least get you above the five percent.

Um if you want to knock the money down from 1.15 to maybe like one million to you know still keep it in there, that money would still help, it would still fund another project.

But I I feel I understand that you're you're trying to secure your loan, but I think there's local room in there.

That's some doesn't come about a couple of miles be made.

So I think I think I still think you can do more.

And like saying you initially made this promise of 43 units, which is a big, which is a big number, but it's a big project.

And going from 43 to 20 is a drastic drop.

And I just have uh, you know, be a manual word.

If you say it, do it.

Okay, thanks, Chuck.

Uh Jeff.

Um, I appreciate Chuck's comments.

I thought I I think his points are are are well taken.

Um I'll add, you know, there's there's real value in having um, you know, I know that the town does, you know, there's been a lot of um affordable housing developments, mostly using LITEC funding that have been built um in the town in recent years with with town funding as well.

Um there's real value in having um uh there's there's value in those um affordable housing developments.

There's also value in um having affordable housing um integrated within a market rate development.

Um so I think it's a it's a it's a shame that it's being reduced.

Um I do however sort of understand the the challenges with financing, especially in the current environment.

Um so I I appreciate it's a difficult situation.

I would be willing to support a recommendation to the to the council that they um you know support this, but request, you know, see if the applicant can preserve um you know switch some more of the or retain some more of the units um and have a lower in in lieu uh payment.

Um Mike or John, do you have anything you want to add?

Yeah, a couple comments.

Thanks, Liz.

Um as of a couple years ago, I thought that the town had a strong preference for on-site affordable housing as opposed as opposed to payments in lieu, and maybe that's changing.

Um I'm having a hard time developing uh opinion on this one way or the other without hearing from um the affordable housing department about whether they whether their views on payments in LU versus on-site affordable housing have evolved or changing with conditions.

Um I think the views of the affordable housing department um would influence my views, and I think that it would be good for the council to have the benefit of understanding what their preferences are here.

Um I'm a bit skeptical that $50,000 per unit makes a town whole here.

Um according to numbers I've seen, it can cost well over $100,000 to um replace an affordable rental unit.

Um I could be wrong.

I'm not an expert in this, but um I'm not sure whether the view that Anna Scott expressed and and you know, indirectly the use of the affordable housing department on this um might be um based on certain assumptions of whether um the town needs to concede something here for the project to be built at all.

And I don't think it's really been established that if the town denies this modification request anything changes or that the the project doesn't go through.

I mean, it certainly complicates um financing.

It doesn't mean that financing won't happen.

Um so I guess I'm sort of neutral on this, and and I I would recommend that the council get some more information from its own affordable housing department as to what the calculus is here from from the town side and on what basis it would, you know, have a preference for or against this.

Um has everybody spoken.

Mike, you started off, right?

Yeah.

Um all right.

Well, I'll Mike, did you have anything else?

You're good, right?

You didn't know.

Yeah, I'm good.

Thank you.

Yes.

Uh I will add my thoughts.

Um sort of like John, I don't have a strong preference, and I completely um support his comment that it really would be good to get some very direct um uh input from the housing uh the housing staff as to how much this amount of payment in lieu it is really going to help.

What what would be the translation of that into future housing?

Maybe it maybe it would give more for if those are the projects, or as John and Chuck imply, maybe it would be less it does sort of complicate it.

It also strikes me that if the town really does that this payment in lieu really is helpful and we are moving toward or that's what we want that it would really make sense to just go ahead and um take all the payment in lieu and eliminate actually maybe even you'd be willing to do more than double it because it would make your life so much easier, not adding all this, and there would be a chunk of money for the town to invest as they see fit.

This just seems to be a kind of odd in between.

Maybe that's the point, it's the compromise, but it kind of feels like it's the least of all worlds because we're not really solving your problem.

We're only making it marginally better, it seems, and we're not really uh getting all the housing that we want at the same time.

So um anyway, I not sure the way I feel, maybe uh support Chuck's recommendation, which I think was seconded by Jeff of encouraging slightly less payment in lieu, but maybe a significant bump up in the amount, you know, maybe a million and ask for something between 25 and 30 uh houses uh housing units, but I'm open to discussion on, or we just vote up or down, and everyone either give a yay-nay or abstain.

I just want to say one more thing, then yeah.

Let's say you have a ton of money in like a ton of cash stashed away for like the town council, uh what uh affordable housing fund.

Just because you have a a bunch of money doesn't mean you can automatically you got you gotta have available land to be to build, or you you need somebody, some developer building something you could add to.

So to have the money is nice, but doesn't necessarily go towards anything.

But if you have the units there, and someone who's building the units, I mean, that's like the whole burn hand is worth two in the bush count of things.

So that's where I'm coming from.

And we know Hillcris, well, no, Hill Month month, sorry.

We know they're gonna have units built, there's gonna be a lot of units, and that will serve the public, whereas this money may or may not eventually down the road, possibly, well, who knows, but we know one is gonna be a certain and others a hopeful.

So, Chuck, are you are you thinking of just voting against it, or do you still propose some sort of compromise?

Um I'm like a who is it?

Henry Clay, the great compromise, or I'm down for uh compromising.

Okay.

Uh, because you kind of convinced me to vote against uh all right.

Anyone have any comments, or should we just vote straight up and see where we land?

Maybe I could chime in with a couple I appreciate everyone's thoughts.

And um, you know, Chuck, I did want to, you know, be clear that I mean, I I saw this as an opportunity as a win-win, and not as I mean, we have an approval, we worked a long time to get that approval, and uh I mean, we'll stand by that.

And um, that's this is not you know, we take I take what I say at every public hearing, and I go in front of I don't know how many councils now with these projects, but um, so I take my word very seriously.

Um this is not that.

This is we we literally saw a potential need at the town, we have this moment in time and and in full you know candor, if we don't if we won't have this opportunity, we have to uh move forward on some things.

Um so it's it you know it we really we kind of we've stretched pretty much as far as we can.

Um we've worked very closely with uh the team um with the affordable housing team.

So um, I mean, if this is something that's just not um in the cards, then you know, we we viewed this as hey, it will make our life easier.

That's what's in it for us.

It's not changing the economics at all.

Um this seemed to be a win win because the town it literally a month ago expressed a gap in financing.

But I mean, if this is something that there's no interest in, then you know we would want to we we would probably take that into account and and are pushing this forward.

So um and what I could say again, I I do want to underscore, I mean I I also don't want to speak for the for Sarah and her team.

What the one thing I'd mentioned, and I think it's a it's a big component of this is the timing of our payment.

Um that that again, I mean, what makes this a win-win is that I think we'd be in position to make this payment potentially by the end of the year.

And you know, this was you know, something that was shown a month ago, uh, assuming this kind of moves to approval.

Um the normal payment in lieu on projects where that's been approved, um, like Elliott Road.

If you look at that approval, that payment is not until the CO of that unit, which even at Hillmont would be two years from now.

So it there's a time value of money, and that was a piece of it that I think had some pretty significant impact um when we talked it through.

So I just wanted to add a little bit of additional color.

Thanks, Adam.

Um other comments?

Any motion since I'm in favor, I'm gonna motion to approve.

Actually, let's do the um the consistency with the comprehensive plan first.

Uh which was I don't have it in front of me.

Amendment.

I believe it's resolution A.

Resolution A.

Does anyone want to put that forward?

I'll move that we recommend approval of resolution A.

I think Mike said second.

Yes.

I see.

Okay.

Um so Jeff.

Oh, we're voting?

Yeah.

This is just for the this is just for the consistency with the comprehensive plan.

Gotcha.

Yes.

Unless were there any comments?

No.

Okay, Jeff.

Yes.

Mike.

Yes.

John?

Yes.

Chuck?

Yes.

And I'm yes.

Okay.

Now we'll go to resolution two, was it?

I guess.

Ordinance A.

Ordinance A.

I obviously don't have this up on my screen, which is to recommend this um uh modification.

Did you want to make a recommendation?

A motion, Mike?

Yes, I didn't.

I I'm in favor.

I think it's the right thing to do.

Okay.

Is there a second?

Okay.

Uh maybe we would discuss.

Does anybody have a um condition approval, but with a condition that they would want to add?

I would well, I would say I would be in favor of approving this resolution if there was some compromise uh included where more units were provided by Hillmont.

And do you want to suggest a number?

Chuck, 25, 30, you know, what 41.

So if we start at 43 and we ended at 20, how about 30?

It's not quite half, halfway there, but it's close enough.

So if we'll say 30 units.

Okay, and with a paybeat less than from 1.15 million down to 1 million dollars.

Okay.

All right.

Is there a second?

Okay, I'll second that.

All right.

Discussion.

Yes, before any votes are held.

Let me make sure that I have accurately captured the motion uh that was just made.

Here's what I have recorded for staff minutes.

Uh oh.

Moves to recommend ordinance A with the modification.

Is that accurate?

Good.

If you put affordable, that's perfect.

Right?

Check, that's that's good, Chuck.

Yes, it is.

Okay.

And any um discussion.

I just wanted to ask that just to help with the logic of it.

If if you're taking out uh 22 units uh at 1.1 million, that's roughly 50K per unit.

That math doesn't work when we go to 30 and we take 100k out of 1.1 million.

So just to do the math, that means that we should be roughly at 600K.

Okay.

Well, uh sorry, Mike.

I mean, I see where you're coming from, but like I said, once again, I was chatting with my affordable housing folks, and like they said, like the whole 50,000 per unit, although I mean it's like it sounds like a nice round number, but in in the real world is not it's not really a practical number.

I mean, you just you know you're not getting the same little bang bang for the book.

So you might so um so you so affordable housing is still kind of losing in the whole deal thing.

You know, let's say if we go back to our original deal with the 43 units with no payment loop, you come out a lot better.

So that's why I'm trying I'm trying to get us closer to where we were without getting all the way there.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Okay one thing I was just gonna uh mention that the uh Elliott Road project was right at 50,000 a unit.

The approval of that payment and lieu in June.

Just aha.

Okay.

That's helpful.

Um okay, let's go ahead and take a vote, and we can uh also entertain others if this doesn't pass.

Uh Chuck.

Yes.

John.

No.

Jeff.

No.

Mike.

I'm sorry, are we voting on the on the uh modified version of this?

Exactly.

30 and 1.1.

So when we say no, we're saying that the we are saying no to this idea, but we are in agreement with the original.

Well, we we're gonna keep voting until we come up with something.

Okay, so I will say no.

Which might be rejecting this.

Okay.

Okay.

I'll vote yes.

So let's see if there's another motion, because that did not pass.

Uh uh, Liz, could I motion that we provide to the council um comments on this matter?

Um, and that those comments reflect the views of our members as we can now sort of articulate them together.

So it's not a complete motion, but it's uh maybe a more of a procedural motion that we just decide what what it is that we want to convey as a group, and maybe there we convey a multiplicity of views and then we convey those to the council.

Anna Scott, would that be acceptable if we conveyed comments instead of uh a recommendation, a voted recommendation?

I'm gonna ask Josh to weigh in.

Uh I would say planning commission can do that.

Um I think the comments would need to be in by a certain deadline to make the packet for council um and all of that.

But uh I was proposing we we um do it right now.

We do them now, yeah.

Okay.

I think you have the option to transmit comments without making a recommendation.

Um if there's further decision to take a motion with the comments attached, I would want to make sure we don't record this as transmitting comments without a recommendation.

Could you say that again?

Sure.

I think uh the planning commission has the opportunity to recommend approval, recommend denial, or transmit comments without a recommendation.

Um this is a motion to transmit comments without a recommendation, we can record it as the planning commission's formal action on this application.

If y'all just want to compile comments before you take any motion on recommending yes or no, then I think that's just discussion.

Okay.

Why don't we um develop the comments and then as we agree on the comments?

It sounds like we'll just pass them without uh a formal acceptance or reject, and but we can change our mind afterwards, Jeff.

We've had one vote on one motion.

Um I understand that you know that that is an option, but I really think um, as the planning commission, we have the duty to sort of try to work through these issues and come up with a recommendation that can garner a majority of the planning commission.

I mean, if we'd gone through like six different motions and none of them pass, that's one thing, but we've had one motion.

We had two motions.

That's not correct.

Jeff, we had two motions.

Two motions.

What was the other motion?

To approve.

We had a motion from Mike that failed, and then we had a motion from Chuck that failed.

Did we have the motion for Mike that failed?

Yeah.

Uh recorded Hike's motion as one that failed for lack of a second.

Right.

So we voted once.

We didn't have a motion without a second fail.

As someone who generally thinks that this is appropriate, I didn't second the motion so that we could further discuss possibly um you know alternatives to just approving um recomm recommending approval of the ordinance.

Could we have a vote on my motion?

There's been no second.

Could we have an opportunity for a second on my motion?

Okay.

Could you repeat your motion, Jen?

My motion is for the planning commission to right now compile a set of comments to convey to the council.

Okay.

Is there a second?

Okay, I will second John's motion.

Uh we'll vote on that, John.

Yes.

Chuck?

Yes.

Jeff?

No.

Mike.

Uh Mike, I'm afraid you're you know, I'm sorry, I'm I'm staying in because I don't I'm not sure on the process.

We're following the process right now.

On the first um motion, there was no second because I think Jeff is saying that he was waiting uh to see what happens to the other motion.

So I'm just saying I'm like we are here we have one already in place.

I think he's saying he can second, so we can vote on that.

So I'm gonna abstain on from this one.

Okay.

And I will vote yes on this.

Okay.

Um so I I think we can still do what Mike, what you and Jeff seem to both want to do.

I think this is just agreeing on comments, which we can attach hopefully to a motion if we come up with one, but this might actually help us all agree where we want this to land.

Um John, do you want to start what you think the key points are?

Okay, so um I'm just speaking for myself, and I'd be interested in in whether other people agree or disagree and you know what their further feedback would be on it.

But um I think that the council should hear from the Affordable Housing Department about whether the affordable housing department considers this a win, and if so, why?

I would recommend that the council obtain that information.

And I would add to that this doesn't have to this wouldn't be in a recommendation, but it could be in notes that I think it'd be very important at the council meeting to have someone, a staff member in attendance from the housing uh department so that they can answer these questions because I think a big question is what is that money going to be used for?

And they can't answer that, but they can say what the suite of opportunities are.

Is it gonna just sit in the treasury for three years or are they really have very viable projects ready to go that they could bring forward?

Um Chuck, would you what would you like to convey in uh notes?

Comments to the council um just that um uh well as I was kind of stated before, I think the um there's um there's a value in the units, and um we should try to get as many units as possible if if if if they've already been offered up in um yeah, the value is in the units.

Um just that um uh well as I was kind of stated before, I think the um there's um there's a value in the units, and um we should try to get as many units as possible if if if if they've already been offered up in um um yeah the value is in the units uh I think what I'm really trying to go for.

And what about the timing of the units?

The fact that they're fairly they would be available fairly soon.

That's that's even uh more opportune.

Yeah, so we have a lot and there's no reason.

Mike or Jeff, do you want to add anything?

I was gonna just uh point out that I'm aligned with um that comment from John.

I I thought initially um Adam, uh not Adam, but I think um uh the city staff pointed out that uh there was buy-in from the affordable housing units.

Okay.

So now I'm I'm in total favor that having that person in the in presence with the commission or uh having input from them is it's uh totally something that needs to happen.

The why I think is important, like John asked, but also not just financially, but maybe the speed to have these housing units is uh things that is required uh is needed by the city.

Um and then having those, I think, um done uh as the as Adam is explaining, maybe of importance to have that available faster than later.

Okay.

But that's again housing affordable housing unit talking.

Okay.

Um Jeff, anything I would have recommended that the town council approve ordinance A.

Um with the recommendation that they discussed with the applicant whether there was an opportunity to increase the number uh to increase the number of on-site units provided um and reducing the in-loop payment amount, um, and uh have having somebody from the town involved in affordable housing at the meeting to um provide input about um the proposal and what okay.

Um other things we might want to convey.

So I think Jeff sort of made it a uh motion.

I did not.

We had a motion, it was approved.

Yes, transmit comments, so there's no other motion to make.

Yeah, yes.

Uh John, I very much read your motion as a transmitting comments without a recommendation motion.

Yes.

That's how I meant it, yeah.

Okay.

Then in that case, uh let me make sure that the comments that I have captured accurately reflect planning commission's comments.

Um I think what I have right now is that uh planning commission transmit comments without a recommendation to convey the planning commit commission's comments to the on the application to the town council.

I have these three that I've kind of worded out.

Council should hear from affordable housing staff to determine their viewpoint on the application.

Council should hear from a member of the affordable housing staff to answer questions on how the potential affordable housing contribution would be used.

Planning commission believes that on-site units are more valuable than a payment in the town, should try to secure as many units as possible.

Um can I I would also add that we are sensitive to the financing needs of the uh that we're we're appreciative that the applicant is having problems securing the funds and that this could help that we're certainly sensitive to that and Josh I might put that last point, I might say we're sensitive to the fact that this is an issue and would be helpful I would put that first and then the what you have third second okay given that this was John's motion in general planning commission had a vote on it says this align with the vote that folks had that this starts the comments and do we want to be more specific than their viewpoint under that second point?

So this align with the vote that folks had that this starts the comments and do we want to be more specific than their viewpoint under that second point?

Yeah, I was thinking what Josh, what if we say council should hear from the affordable housing staff?

About whether staff um believes the modification is beneficial, and if so, why sure to the town, and if so, why it's good.

Um the point instead of here from a member, how about just have a member of the staff available at the council meeting to answer questions?

Yeah.

Um I think that gets more into directing staff.

I think this is for council.

Council should hear from affordable housing staff.

Um I can say affordable housing staff will be present at a council meeting.

Okay.

Well, then you could probably take that third point out because it's a little confusing how it differs from the one above.

Yeah, I think I'd heard the separate points of do we think this would be good, and then can affordable housing staff explain how this would be used?

If we think the first one counts captures that, I think can take out that point.

I think so.

I think that's sort of redundant.

Yeah, I agree.

And I think that somewhere in that last point, we should also have it's not just the units, but the um the timing, the timing and quantity of on-site units that capture.

Yeah, we could probably wordsmith that a little bit, but I think that captures the point.

Can we vote on this, Josh, and then just later tonight send you a cleaned up version of this?

Would that be okay?

So we don't all have to sit here and wordsmith.

You're just talking about stylistic, not substantive change.

Yeah, yeah.

Just to make it a little what are we going to vote on?

So I was gonna say I'm happy to accept that text in my motion.

I think we need to vote on it again.

And you know, we because my my motion wasn't really um complete without some without the comments.

So I think I need to so basically do another motion.

If I can that's not that's not how this parliamentary procedure works.

Okay, what what do you suggest, Jeff?

I suggest we're done.

Oh, I see.

On this on this issue.

That's I mean, one of the concerns I had with moving forward with this after we had a vote on one motion, um, and deciding not to make a recommendation was we didn't have, I mean, I think I agree with a lot of this, but I think this could have been framed in the in the context of a recommendation from the planning commission.

And it just it was premature, I think.

And I think I I don't think there's a proceed a parliamentary method to have another vote on a motion that we already had.

Well, what if we I'll defer to Liz here about what if we just go around among the commission members right now and just confirm that there's not something else that people want to be captured.

Okay.

So Josh, just to be clear, you would convey even if we clean those comments up slightly, but that's what it would look like if you conveyed that's what you would put for ordinance A.

Yes, I think given that uh John asked to uh convey planning commission's comments uh and then to work on them after.

I think there are two routes you could go.

Uh you could agree to the comments we have here, we could wordsmith them right now, um, or we could simply take that motion not include any comments that we've just created, and that could be delegated by planning commission, however, given that uh the motion did not include any delegation to someone to the planning commission's comments.

I would feel uncomfortable with that.

Let's let's just finish these comments.

Is it would it would it be proper to to um to make a motion to vacate um the motion to recommend transmitting comments um to the council?

I don't know somebody who's better at I have my copy of Robert's rules of order over there, and I can go take a look.

Um button I certainly don't object appropriate, but I don't object to that.

And then we should I'm talking, John.

Um if it's procedurally appropriate, we can go forward and uh with that and then you know vote on actual comments that we want to transmit.

Josh, I'm sorry, could you put that up one more time so we can see exactly how it's worded?

Sure.

Um what I've heard from Jeff was basically a motion to vacate this motion.

Actually, uh let me I'm going to amend it's a motion to reconsider.

Okay, motion to reconsider.

But I'm not I I don't believe I'm allowed to make it because I did not vote yes on that.

But Jeff, I was just offering to withdraw if that would be helpful.

I can move on.

It's already been adopted, so you can't withdraw it.

Okay.

Would anyone like to motion to reconsider that and then we could rewrite the motion again, perhaps more in line with what we're now discussing?

Would anyone like to put that forward?

And it's got you might have more detail on this.

Uh uh quick Google search of Robert's rules.

Jeff, I don't have the book, but I have a Google.

Uh I it appears from Google that you can either a motion to reconsider or motion to rescind.

Um, but it has to be done at the same meeting as the original vote, and a member who voted with the winning side must make that motion.

Got it.

So that would be one of John, Chuck, or Liz.

Right.

And otherwise we leave it as is, and what goes forward is what you have on the screen right now.

Is that correct, Josh?

If Planning Commission believes these are the comments that y'all have been making this meeting and accurately capture them, then yes.

Okay.

Okay, okay, guys, just one thing, if you don't mind.

There's the second bullet.

Can we change the weather to why?

Yeah.

Uh okay.

I think we I would suggest leaving weather given the um we don't want to speak for affordable housing staff.

We don't want to make it seem like we stated they recommended uh that they believe this is beneficial.

I think we that is still for affordable housing staff to answer.

Okay.

I I think you could change it to if about if staff believes the modification is beneficial, and then at the end of that comment add and why.

I'm good with that.

Is that helping?

Do we want to add oh sorry for the last point?

The planning commission believes that in general on site units are more valuable because I think without a with no comment.

In general, on-site units are more valuable than pay than a payment.

So the town should try to secure as many units as possible that can be do people agree with that or this is a no or a yes.

Everyone's without hearing yes.

Yes.

In general's good.

Yep.

Okay.

I'm okay with this.

Are folks comfortable with the comments?

Any other changes?

All right.

Let me ask again.

Would anyone like to rescind the motion?

Okay.

I think then we have a we're done.

Right.

Yes.

What I have written is what we'll have for the staff materials for planning commission's recommendation to transmit comments without a recommendation.

That makes us much more timely than recent meetings, huh?

Poor Josh is often waiting for us to uh follow up.

All right.

Uh I think that's the end of the agenda.

Does anybody have any other business or comments?

Thank you, Adam.

Thank you for um suffering through this uh Robert's rural uh extravaganza.

Thank you.

I appreciate everyone's thoughts.

Good luck.

We we do appreciate your situation and your willingness to try to come up with something to make it work for everyone.

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Good luck.

Good night.

Okay.

Anything else?

When is our when is our next meeting?

Just so I don't forget.

Yes.

Uh as a reminder, we uh at the last meeting canceled the November 4th meeting.

Our next meeting is November 18th.

Um also as a reminder, we canceled the December 16th meeting.

Um, and as a confirmation, because I did not state it during the last planning commission meeting.

Uh, can I safely assume that we don't want to meet January 6th?

Uh I will be back by then, but um can I safely assume I don't have to make an agenda on December 30th.

Sure.

So how about just unless there's some business that comes up that has to happen.

Uh I think we could meet, but otherwise we'll postpone until the second week in January, if there's some you know, project that needs approval.

Yeah, I don't have any I could attend the sixth.

If I think staff does not anticipate needing the sixth.

Um we're happy to keep it on the calendar and cancel it when we don't have agenda items, but um Josh, I leave that to you.

If you want to risk it and uh and uh have some developer be very, but just leaving on the calendar will make them think that we that's fine to skip that.

Okay.

Uh and I think you said you were gonna try and give us an update on location of future meetings tonight.

Yes.

Um I wanted to I can put it in the email.

I think I can reiterate that the options that we know are available are uh the library um with a hard deadline on meetings of eight o'clock.

Uh you can meet at the police station in their conference room uh up off of Mill House Road.

Uh that has adequate security.

It does not have a time constraint.

It is meeting at the police station.

Um we can continue virtual meetings going forward uh for planning commission with potential for in-person meetings, but those in-person meetings still kind of live with those two options if hosted by the town.

Does anybody meet in the police station besides the police?

No.

Uh not at this moment.

Well, that'd be interesting.

I'm not, you know, to the extent we want the purpose of this is to allow the public to be there in person.

I mean, partly.

I think it's also good to have a meeting in person.

Um, but um I given its location and the fact that it's a police station, I don't know that it's a very welcoming location for us to be in.

Well, I'd feel safe.

Chuck, were you gonna say something?

A second Jeff's uh motion there.

All right.

I think the only other thing I'd note is that uh planning commission does have the ability to pick a location uh as long as it is compatible with open meeting laws and our recordings.

Um but that I've given you the options that staff can pull together for y'all.

Meaning we could meet in somebody's living room.

Uh that would likely not meet open meeting laws.

Um but I I think essentially there are other public options like you could rent a park shelter, you could you know use the school spaces, etc.

Um, but the options that the town has available that I know I could guarantee our scheduling are the ones that uh police station and online.

All right.

Well, uh certainly we're fine next month.

We'll be online, and if someone has once a December holiday meeting in person will come with an idea uh in December.

Can you meet it like you know in a bar?

I would have to look.

I I thought y'all might suggest that.

Uh-huh.

Can we drink during the meeting?

That's the important question.

I don't think there's anything in the orientation that says you can.

All right.

I think it's time to adjourn.

Is there a motion to adjourn?

I'll put the motion forward.

All in favor.

Yes.

All right.